4.4 Review

tRNomics: Analysis of tRNA genes from 50 genomes of Eukarya, Archaea, and Bacteria reveals anticodon-sparing strategies and domain-specific features

期刊

RNA
卷 8, 期 10, 页码 1189-1232

出版社

COLD SPRING HARBOR LAB PRESS, PUBLICATIONS DEPT
DOI: 10.1017/S1355838202022021

关键词

comparative genomics; matching pattern; RNomics; tRNA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

From 50 genomes of the three domains of life (7 eukarya, 13 archaea, and 30 bacteria), we extracted, analyzed, and compared over 4,000 sequences corresponding to cytoplasmic, nonorganellar tRNAs. For each genome, the complete set of tRNAs required to read the 61 sense codons was identified, which permitted revelation of three major anticodon-sparing strategies. Other features and sequence peculiarities analyzed are the following: (1) fit to the standard cloverleaf structure, (2) characteristic consensus sequences for elongator and initiator tDNAs, (3) frequencies of bases at each sequence position, (4) type and frequencies of conserved 2D and 3D base pairs, (5) anticodon/tDNA usages and anticodon-sparing strategies, (6) identification of the tRNA-Ile with anticodon CAU reading AIJA, (7) size of variable arm, (8) occurrence and location of introns, (9) occurrence of 3'-CCA and 5'-extra G encoded at the tDNA level, and (10) distribution of the tRNA genes in genomes and their mode of transcription. Among all tRNA isoacceptors, we found that initiator tDNA-iMet is the most conserved across the three domains, yet domain-specific signatures exist. Also, according to which tRNA feature is considered (5'-extra G encoded in tDNAs-His, AUA codon read by tRNA-Ile with anticodon CAU, presence of intron, absence of two-out-of-three reading mode and short V-arm in tDNA-Tyr) Archaea sequester either with Bacteria or Eukarya. No common features between Eukarya and Bacteria not shared with Archaea could be unveiled. Thus, from the tRNomic point of view, Archaea appears as an intermediate domain between Eukarya and Bacteria.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据